Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 127, Issue 1, pp 143–150 | Cite as

Habitat structure, population abundance and the opportunity for selection on body weight in the amphipodEogammarus oclairi

  • O. Iribarne
Article

Abstract

The importance of oyster-shell habitat-characteristics (depth of the shell layer or degree of fragmentation) to the amphipodEogammarus oclairi were studied in Grays Harbor estuary (Washington, USA) in regard to their effect on local density ofE. oclairi, the risk of predation by juvenile Dungeness crabsCancer magister, and the opportunity for selection on body weight during pairing.E. oclairi was the most abundant macrofaunal species in the intertidal oyster-shell assemblages (density range = 20 to 8500 amphipods m−2), and its density was positively correlated with the depth of the oyster-shell layer (r = 0.85,n = 30,p < 0.005). Field experiments showed that amphipod density was much lower when oyster shells were whole (x = 340.7 ± 72.1,n = 10) as opposed to fragmented [x = 41.4 ± 9.3,n = 10;t c (Welch's approximatet-test) = 13.0,df = 9.3,p < 0.05]. Densities of a predator, juvenileC. magister, were not affected by depth of the shell layer nor by degree of fragmentation (whole shell,x = 14.6 ± 13.0 crab;fragmented shell,x = 18.7 ± 2.4 crab;t c = 0.83,df = 9.7,p > 0.05). Predation rate on single amphipods by crabs did not differ between habitat types (whole shells vs fragmented shells), but mating pairs were consumed more often in the whole-shell treatment (whole shell,x = 0.9 ± 0.8, fragmented shell,x = 0.1 ± 0.3). There were no differences in the size of single amphipods (both sexes) consumed between treatments, or in the size of the paired males consumed. Field experiments showed that the opportunity for selection (i) on male body weight increased with increasing amphipod density which, in turn, increased with increasing degree of shell fragmentation (whole-shell treatment,i = 0.0014 ± 0.0002, fragmented-shell treatment,i = 0.3756 ± 0.0338). Large spatial and temporal fluctuations in population abundance complicate the evaluation of the importance of selection in determining traits such as body weight.

Keywords

Body Weight Field Experiment Habitat Type Temporal Fluctuation Predation Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcock J (1989) Animal behavior. Sinauer AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong J (1991) Food habits of staghorn sculpin,Leptocottus armatus, and their role as predators of juvenile Dungeness Grab,Cancer magister, in the Grays Harbor estuary, Washington. MS thesis. Univerity of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong D, Iribarne O, Dinnel P, McGraw K, Shaffer A, Palacios R, Fernandez M, Feldman K, Willimas G (1992) Mitigation of Dungeness Grab,Cancer magister, losses due to dredging by development of intertidal shell habitat: pilot study during 1991. University of Washington, Seattle (Ref. FRI,-UW-9205)Google Scholar
  4. Arnold SJ (1983) Sexual selection: the interface of theory and empiricism. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 67–108Google Scholar
  5. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ (1984a) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38: 709–719Google Scholar
  6. Arnold SJ, Wade, MJ (1984b) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: application. Evolution 38: 720–734Google Scholar
  7. Bousfield EL (1979) A revised clasification and phylogeny of amphipod crustaceans. Trans R Soc Can 16: 343–390Google Scholar
  8. Conlan KE (1991) Precopulatory mating behavior and sexual dimorphism in the amphipod Crustacea. Hydrobiologia 223: 255–282Google Scholar
  9. Crowley PH, Travers SR, Linton MC, Cohn SL, Sih A, Sargent C (1991) Mate density, predation risk, and the seasonal sequence of mate choice: a dynamic game. Am Nat 137: 567–596Google Scholar
  10. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. 2nd edn. Burt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dumbauld BR, Armstrong DA, McDonald TL (1993) Use of oyster shell to enhance intertidal habitat and mitigate loss of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) caused by dredging. Can J Fish aquat Sciences 50: 381–390Google Scholar
  12. Elwood R, Gibson J, Neil S (1987) The amorousGammarus: size assortative mating inG. pulex. Anim Behav 35: 1–6Google Scholar
  13. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and thé evolution of mating systems. Science, NY 197: 215–223Google Scholar
  14. Falconer DS (1981) Introduction to quantitative genetics. 2nd edn. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez M, Armstrong D, Iribarne O (1994) First cohort of 0 + Dungeness crab,Cancer magister, reduces abundance of subsequent cohorts in intertidal shell habitats. Can J Fish aquat Sciences 50: 2100–2105Google Scholar
  16. Fernandez M, Iribarne O, Armstrong D (1993) Habitat selection and predation risk of juvenile Dungeness crabCancer magister Dana in intertidal habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 92: 171–177Google Scholar
  17. Gorman OT, Karr JR (1978) Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology 59: 507–515Google Scholar
  18. Grafen A (1987) Measuring sexual selection: why bother? In: Bradbury JM, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing thé alternatives. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 221–233 (Dhalem Workshop Reports)Google Scholar
  19. Hacker SD, Steneck RS (1990) Habitat architecture and the abundance and body-size-dependent habitat selection of a phytal amphipod. Ecology 71: 2269–2285Google Scholar
  20. Harlin MM (1980) Seagrass epiphytes. In: Phillips RC, McRoy CP (eds) Handbook of seagrass biology: an ecosystem perspective. Garland STPM Press, New York, pp 449–464Google Scholar
  21. Harvey AW (1990) Sexual differentes in contemporary selection acting on size of the hermit crab Clibanarius digueti. Am Nat 136: 292–304Google Scholar
  22. Hay ME, Duffy JE, Fenical W (1990) Host-plant specialization decreases predation on a marine amphipod: an herbivore in plant clothing. Ecology 71: 733–743Google Scholar
  23. Hubbell SP, Johnson LK (1987) Environmental variance in lifetime mating success, mate choice, and sexual selection. Am Nat 130: 91–112Google Scholar
  24. Iribarne OO (1994) Mating biology and selection on body weight inEoganimarus oclairi Bousfield (Crustacea Amphipoda). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  25. Iribarne O, Armstrong D, Palacios R, Fernandez M (1992) Ecological effects of adding bivalve shell to intertidal soft-bottom areas. NW envirl J (Seattle) 8: 153–153Google Scholar
  26. Iribarne O, Fernandez M, Armstrong D (1995a) Molting and fertilization of female amphipodEogammarus oclairiA: diel molting rhythm and the effect of delaying copulation. Mar Fresh wat Behav Physiol 25: 1–11Google Scholar
  27. Iribarne O, Fernandez M, Armstrong D (1995b) Precopulatory guarding time of the male amphipodEogammarus oclairi: effect of population structure. Mar Biol 124: 219–223Google Scholar
  28. Kohn, AJ (1967) Environmental complexity and species diversity in the gastropod genusConus on Indo-West Pacific reef platforms. Am Nat 101: 251–259Google Scholar
  29. Leber KH (1985) The influence of predatory decapods, refuge, and microhabitat selection on seagrass communities. Ecology 66: 1951–1964Google Scholar
  30. Levings CD (1973) Intertidal benthos of the Squamish estuary. Rep Fish Res Bd Can 1218: 1–34Google Scholar
  31. Lewel GS (1978) Sexual dimorphism and intraspecific aggression, and their relationship to sex ratios inCaprella gorgonia Laubitz & Lewel (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Caprellidae). J exp mar Biol Ecol 33: 133–151Google Scholar
  32. Lewis FG III (1987) Crustacean epifauna of seagrass and macroalgae in Apalachee Bay, Florida, USA. Mar Biol 94: 219–229Google Scholar
  33. MacArthur RH, MacArthur JW (1961) On bird species diversity. Ecology 42: 594–598Google Scholar
  34. McLain DK, Boromisa RD (1987) Male choice, fighting ability, assortative mating and the intensity of sexual selection in the milkweed longhorn beetle,Tetraopes tetraophtalmus (Coleoptera: Cerambicidae). Behavl Ecol Sociobiol 20: 239–246Google Scholar
  35. Morino H (1981) Studies on the Talitridae (Amphipoda, Crustacea) in Japan. IV. The development of gnathopod II inOrchestia platensis Krøyer. Publs Seto mar Biol Lab 24: 245–267Google Scholar
  36. Myers JL (1971) Breeding and growth in laboratory-rearedMicro-deutopus gryllotalpa Costa (Amphipoda: Gammaridae). J nat Hist 5: 271–277Google Scholar
  37. Orth RJ, Heck KL, van Monfrans J (1984) Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator-prey relationship. Estuaries 7: 339–350Google Scholar
  38. Parker GA (1970) Sperm compétition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45: 525–567Google Scholar
  39. Robinson BW, Doyle RW (1985) Trade-off between male reproduction (amplexus) and growth in the amphipodGammarus lawrencianus. Biol Bull mar biol Lab, Woods Hole 168: 482–488Google Scholar
  40. Sargent RC (1982) Territory quality, male quality, courtship intrusions, and female nest choice in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim Behav 30: 364–374Google Scholar
  41. Sargent RC, Gebler, JB (1980) Effects of nest site concealment on hatching success, reproductive success, and paternal behavior of the threespine stickleback,Gasterosteus aculeatus. Behavl Ecol Sociobiol 7: 137–142Google Scholar
  42. Sargent RC, Gross MR, van den Berghe EP (1986) Male mate choice in fishes. Anim Behav 34: 545–550Google Scholar
  43. Sexton EW (1924) The moulting and growth stages ofGammarus, with description of the normals and intersexes ofG. chevreauxi. J mar biol Ass UK 13: 340–387Google Scholar
  44. Sinclair, ARE (1989) Population regulation in animals. In: Cherret, JM (Ed.) Ecological concepts. Blackwell, Oxford, England, pp 197–241Google Scholar
  45. Stevens B, Armstrong DA, Cusimano R (1982) Feeding habits of the Dungeness crab Cancer magister as determined by the index of relative importance. Mar Biol 72: 135–145Google Scholar
  46. Strong DR (1972) Life history variation among populations of an amphipod (Hyalella azteca). Ecology 53: 1103–1111Google Scholar
  47. Strong DR (1973) Amphipods amplexus, the significance of ecotypic variation. Ecology 54: 1383–1388Google Scholar
  48. Sutherland WJ (1985) Measures of sexual selection. Oxf Surv evolut Biol 2: 90–101Google Scholar
  49. Sutherland WJ (1987) Random and deterministic components of variance in mating success. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. John Wiley& Sons, New York, pp 209–219 (Dahlem Workshop Reports)Google Scholar
  50. Thornhill R, Gwynne DT (1986) The evolution of sexual différences in insects. Am Scient 74: 382–389Google Scholar
  51. Van Dolah RF (1978) Factors regulating the distribution and population dynamics of thé amphipodGammarus palustris in an intertidal salt marsh community. Ecol Monogr 48: 191–218Google Scholar
  52. Ward PI (1983) Advantages and disadvantages of large body size for maleGammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Behavl Ecol Sociobiol 14: 69–76Google Scholar
  53. Ward PI (1986) A comparative field study of thé breeding behavior of stream and a pond population ofGammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Oikos 46: 29–36Google Scholar
  54. Ward PI (1987) Sexual selection and body size inGammarus pulex: a reply to Greenwood and Adams. Oikos 46: 29–36Google Scholar
  55. Ward PI (1988) Sexual selection, natural selection, and body size inGammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Am Nat 131: 348–359Google Scholar
  56. Wells KD (1977) The social behavior of anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 25: 666–693Google Scholar
  57. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Iribarne
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Biología (FCEyN)Universidad National de Mar del PlataMar del PlataArgentina

Personalised recommendations